Alabama bill would reform civil asset forfeiture: Opinion

(Newser) – Since 2007, the DEA has seized a total of $3.2 billion in cash from people suspected of being involved in the drug trade but never charged with a crime, the Washington Post reports. According to the AP, the inspector general reviewed 100 cases of civil asset forfeiture at random and found only 44 were verifiably connected to an ongoing investigation, responsible for starting a new investigation, or led to arrests or prosecutions. That means that 56% of the time "there was no discernible connection between the seizure and the advancement of law enforcement efforts," Business Insider quotes from the report.
Wochit

Buy Photo

Sen. Arthur Orr, R-Decatur, recently introduced Senate Bill 213. If enacted, it would end civil asset forfeiture at the state and local level.(Photo: Mickey Welsh/Advertiser)Buy Photo

A bill pending in the Alabama Legislature could end one of the state's many longstanding injustices.

Civil asset forfeiture is a problem not just in Alabama, but nationwide. It creates bad incentives for law enforcement and goes against the hallowed principle of innocent until proven guilty.

State Sen. Arthur Orr, R-Decatur, recently introduced Senate Bill 213. The bill has six co-sponsors and deserves the support of the entire Legislature. If enacted, SB 213 would end civil asset forfeiture at the state and local level.

It also would restrict local law enforcement's involvement with civil forfeiture proceedings undertaken by federal law enforcement, resulting when federal, state and local law enforcement cooperate on a case. Local agencies could participate in the federal "equitable sharing" program only in major cases involving property valued in excess of $100,000.

Civil asset forfeiture most often occurs in drug cases, but not exclusively. Because it's a civil proceeding, it takes place apart from any criminal case. As a result, suspects can be denied their property even when they're acquitted of wrongdoing or the charges against them are dropped. Some people spend years trying to get back their property. Some never do.

That's because, unlike criminal cases, which require people to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, civil cases must meet only the lesser standard of "preponderance of the evidence."

In effect, civil asset forfeiture acts as a criminal penalty imposed, through legal hocus pocus, on a lesser standard than would pass muster in a criminal court. It is an affront to the Constitution, America's legal traditions and the rule of law.

This month, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Alabama Appleseed Center for Law & Justice released a report on the state of civil asset forfeiture in Alabama. The report chronicles a sad parade of individuals who lost their property to civil forfeiture even though they were never found guilty of a crime. Some, like Michael Coleman and Jacquard Merritt, were never even charged, which was the case in 25 percent of the instances the report examined.

Orr's bill would put a stop to that. Criminal asset forfeiture, which requires a conviction, would remain on the books, so no one actually convicted of a crime would get to keep their ill-gotten gains.

Left-of-center groups such as the SPLC and Alabama Appleseed aren't the only ones concerned about the injustices of Alabama's present civil asset forfeiture regime. The libertarian-leaning Institute for Justice, supported in part by progressives' favorite bogeymen Charles and David Koch, gives Alabama's civil asset forfeiture laws a D- grade, noting that in "Alabama, law enforcement keeps 100 percent of the proceeds from forfeited property, creating a strong incentive to seize."

SB 213 would restore the legal balance in Alabama. It would require the government to make its case in criminal court and prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt before taking someone's property.

According to the Institute for Justice's Nick Sibilla, if SB 213 becomes law, "Alabama would be just the fourth state to eliminate civil forfeiture, following the lead of Nebraska, New Mexico and North Carolina."

Also according to Sibilla, the $100,000 floor on participating in federal equitable sharing would be tied with Ohio's for the highest in the nation.

SB 213 is a sweeping reform of an unjust system, and Orr and his co-sponsors deserve praise for not taking half measures. This is a bill that could be a model of criminal justice reform for the rest of the nation, and the federal government, too, which, under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, unfortunately has become only more enamored with civil asset forfeiture.

The Alabama Senate and House should pass the bill, and Gov. Kay Ivey should sign it, as is, no amendments. This is an easy call. The Legislature should make it and move on.